ORDER : 1. The North Western Railway Recruitment Cell under a notification dated nil initiated a process of selection for recruitment to different posts in Group-D category in the pay band-1 of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs.18,000/-. The last date for submitting applications to face the process of selection was 15.02.2011. The respondent-original applicant on considering himself eligible to be considered for appointment in the category aforesaid submitted an application form. By a letter dated 22.03.2011 he pointed out that being suffered with sprain in his hand, the declaration in the application was filled-in the hand writing of his brother, hence looking to this unavoidable circumstance the requirement of condition No.8.2 and 8.11 that pertains to make declaration in the hand writing of the aspirant himself be dispensed with. No response to the letter aforesaid was given and the applicant was called for to face the process of selection. Result of the same was declared on 12.10.2012 and the petitioner was declared successful. Despite qualifying the examination, no offer for appointment in ‘D’ category service was extended. The applicant, thus, by a representation demanded reasons for not according him appointment, but of no consequence. Ultimately, he demanded the same through an application as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As per the provisions of the Act of 2005, necessary information was supplied to the original applicant by the Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment North Western Railway, Jaipur) on 31.07.2013. As per the information supplied, candidature of the applicant was rejected being in violation of Para 8.11 of the prescribed conditions. It was clarified that as per the para aforesaid, the application was required to be filled-in by the candidate in his own hand writing. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the appellant-respondent the respondent-original applicant preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur, that came to be allowed. Under the order dated 04.04.2016. The Tribunal while accepting the original application held that the approach of Recruiting Agency was absolutely unwarranted and unreasonable, specially looking to the fact that the applicant himself informed to the competent authority about his impediment in filling up the application form in his own hand writing. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal this petition for writ is before us. 4. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal this petition for writ is before us. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the process of selection came to an end in the year 2012 and the original application was filed in the year 2014, therefore, the Tribunal should have not interfered with the process of selection. It is further submitted that admittedly the application submitted by the respondent-original applicant was not in accordance with the conditions laid down, therefore, the same was rightly cancelled. 5. Per contra, as per the original applicant, the deficiency in the application form was due to certain unavoidable circumstance and that fact was brought into knowledge of the Recruiting Agency immediately after submitting the application form. The respondents also permitted the applicant to face the process of selection and even his result was declared, therefore, it was not open to reject the candidature subsequently. It is further submitted that the result of the process of selection was declared on 21.06.2012 and immediately thereafter, the original applicant sought reason for not affording him appointment. No response to the representation given by him was given and therefore, he preferred an application before the competent authority as per provision of Right to Information Act, 2005. The authority competent under the Act of 2005, at the first instance supplied the reasons for rejecting candidature of the applicant on 31.07.2013 and the respondent-original applicant diligently, well within the limitation prescribed under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 preferred an original application, as such, the objection pertaining to delay is absolutely ill-founded. 6. Heard learned counsel. 7. At the threshold we would like to state that the objection raised by the appellant about delay in filing the original application is of no consequence, as admittedly, the application was filed within the limitation prescribed. True it is, the selections in question came to an end in the year 2012 and the application was filed in the year 2013, but prior to that the applicant made efforts to have reasons for not giving him appointment. The petitioner did not choose to supply the reasons and therefore, the respondent applicant availed the course under the Right to Information Act. On having necessary information as per provisions of the Act of 2005, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner did not choose to supply the reasons and therefore, the respondent applicant availed the course under the Right to Information Act. On having necessary information as per provisions of the Act of 2005, the applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. This factual background, as a matter of fact, indicates the tendency of petitioner for not maintaining transparency in its own working. The petitioner, if would have supplied the reasons at first instance, the applicant would have approached the Tribunal quite earlier. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, we would like to state that the respondent original applicant at the time of submitting application form informed the petitioner employer about the unavoidable circumstances compelling him to get the application form filled-in in the hand-writing of his brother. The reasonable course available to the employer was to dispense with the requirement which is having no adverse effect on merits of the applicant’s candidature. Surprisingly enough, the petitioner employer instead of acting reasonably decided to reject the petitioner’s candidature on hyper-technical ground. 9. It is well known that the concept of reasonableness is most valuable attribute of equality or non-arbitrariness protected by Article-14 of the Constitution. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in several cases including Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India & Anr. ( AIR 1978 SC 597 ), Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors. ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) and M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Anr. (1980 AIR 1992) emphasized that the concept of reasonableness is a most valuable cradle of our constitutional scheme. Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution demonstrates the reasonableness as a golden thread in our constitutional system, which inspires to have a system ensuring socio-political and economic justice. The principle of reasonableness legally, as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness. Every governmental action, may that be under the authority of law or in exercise of executive powers, must reflect reasonability. 10. The facts of the instant case smacks arbitrariness on part of employer petitioner and that fails to fulfill the test of reasonability. The principle of reasonableness legally, as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness. Every governmental action, may that be under the authority of law or in exercise of executive powers, must reflect reasonability. 10. The facts of the instant case smacks arbitrariness on part of employer petitioner and that fails to fulfill the test of reasonability. In view of it, we find ourselves in absolute agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner-employer must have dispensed with the condition of filling-up application form in the hand-writing of original applicant himself looking to the impediment suffered by him and the circumstances unavoidable. 11. The petition for writ, as such, is having no merits. Hence, dismissed.